If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

who's opinion is more valid then whom's on what topic?

and to the second point: i think it does. if you just say "life begins at conception" without reason or justification, then you are committing that evil which i have spoke about many times here in this thread. also, still doesn't absolve you of the issue of other folks, who even claim to worship the same god, are ok with abortions in some cases. and if you equate abortion to murder, that is like saying you are ok with murder, in some cases. it merely gets more nonsensical the farther down that subject line you go. that phase also is not defined well. what is "life?"

here is another moral issue with religion, i like to call it calvin and hobbs christmas issue

calvin always deals with wanting to do good, because he wants to get what he wants for christmas. so calvin wants to do good things, for all the wrong reasons. he wants to do good, for a reward.

this is why the notion of heaven and hell destroy morality. if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

this is why in so many arguments, theists will threaten you with hell.

the truly moral person does good for the sake of good, and avoids evil because of the consequences of it. not because he/she is being rewarded or punished for there actions.

Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

I am ok with murder in some cases. The law references it as justifiable homicide. You demand to know someones motivation to judge action. Why? Is a good action less good based on motivation?

motive is important sometimes, other times it is not. such are the details of morality.

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

that would be be great, if that was how Christians dealt with morality. i would argue however, using Jesus as your justification to question is in an of itself, another authority argument. this is like the classic line i find so very very annoying "cockerpunk says this ..."

it should be irreverent who says what, only why it is important or accurate matters.

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

I brought this point up in another forum...and got kicked out

The site owner didn't like my point of view nor my alter universe of how the world would be if those (what I like to call) "safe guards" weren't put in place for a select few people in this world.

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

your entire last paragraph is merely assertion. you have proven no such "good" case that one cannot just skip a step (religion) and get to the same conclusion for actual reasons.

Can I not say the same for every philosophical theory or anything that builds on previous knowledge?

So is anything that can be used to manipulate someone evil?

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I would not classify the Jesuit's as either not religious or intellectually lazy either. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

and, yes.

You said it in response to questions about why religion is evil. So that entire discussion had nothing to do with why relgiion was evil.

Circles. I did not offer the conclusion that "all religions are evil" you did. I called you on it, disagreed, and asked you to explain why.

You went off about authoratarianism. When questioned you said this was not evil.

You went off about interfering with Locke's natural man. When asked if this was evil you said no.

So you offered the conclusion and then offered no support to it. When you did offer any discussion the discussion you offered would not make something evil according to you.

Then you attacked the intellect of anyone who was religion because you could not actually defend your first premise.

Lets take a little poll: Does anyone, besides CP himself, have any clue on why he thinks religion is evil based on the content of this thread?

if you read the thread, it all becomes clear. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed. and then you say since i wont defend it i made a claim without support, but i never made the claim you think i did in the first place. religion is evil, for the reasons i cited, and if you believe in an authority that will judge us when we die, then you arn't free. i started with those claims, and have defended and support them. you have spent the entire thread trying to find a tiny hole either position to stick your finger in.

i also did not attack the intellect of the religious, i called them intellectually lazy. i would also call them intellectual cowards, none of which are akin to calling them stupid.

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

i do think i have conveyed more then a few different ways that religion is evil. and i have not talked about authoritarianism at all. i have talked about how if you believe that we are all subject to an authority by our very nature of existing, then we can't be free. because, you know, logic and the definition of words.

if you are confused, then you need ask more probing questions, because its all well explained in the thread so far. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed, despite that for 3 pages i have been clarifying that exact point to you over and over again.

You stated all religion was evil. You have yet to explain why. When you go into explanations and are asked does ____________ make it evil you say no.

So. Let me help

According to you all religion is evil because _________________________

Fill in the second blank.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

that situation merely highlights the situational nature of morality. the devil is in the details often times. this is another grip i have with religious mandates, they are always in rock solid generalities, when often, what is moral is time or situationally dependent.

should you jump into the river? idk, depends on a lot of things. how far out are they? how well do you swim? how rough is the water? is there any other way to help them? how old are they? how capable of a swimmer are they?

but if there was a religious mandate on the topic it would be something like: always save people in rivers

for example: abortion

should you get an abortion? idk, depends on a lot of things. this is a fun one because even the religious are split, based on situation of conception, danger of the pregnancy, etc etc etc. and even though the religious disagree, they still claim that there opinion is gods!

this is just another gripe about religious based morality. i have plenty if you want more

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

here is another moral issue with religion, i like to call it calvin and hobbs christmas issue

calvin always deals with wanting to do good, because he wants to get what he wants for christmas. so calvin wants to do good things, for all the wrong reasons. he wants to do good, for a reward.

this is why the notion of heaven and hell destroy morality. if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

this is why in so many arguments, theists will threaten you with hell.

the truly moral person does good for the sake of good, and avoids evil because of the consequences of it. not because he/she is being rewarded or punished for there actions.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

there are half a dozen reasons listed here, with multiple examples of each, and rebuttal to any counter claims.

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify.

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so

[quote= cockerpunk
i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. [/quote]

So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?

My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so

it is inherently dangerous, and thus evil

So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?

no, and that counter point is already dealt with

If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all

nope, all religions contain this logical assumption

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?

no, it gives them a conclusion based on what bronze age shepherds thought.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

cool, not a counter point. you are going to line that nice feeling you get when someone smiles at you to the promise of eternal paradise? that's just a few leaps and bounds different.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.

nope but it sure is an easy way to!

So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

yes, conclusions based on bronze age shepherds taken on faith are not valid.

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?

yup, and that point is already dealt with in the post you quoted

My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

i can't help it that you want to apply what you think i say to something that i don't mean to say. that's not my problem.

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

are you even reading this stuff?

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

i didn't say you did, i said others here did.

the issue with the truce of 1914, is that peace should break out in the middle of the war, and we have great reasons to declare peace in the middle of a war. religion is unnecessary to declaring a truce, or peace at all. meanwhile, religion is REQUIRED if you want to use religion to murder women and intellectuals.

thus, in declaring peace, religion is unnecessary, but to do horrible evils like the inquisition - its required. so why not skip a step - just do good for the sake of good! religion is all but unnecessary.

all religion* teaches that we should have faith in something unprovable. this is evil, dangerous, and a bad way to live. it is a tool to bring us back to the dark ages, it is a tool that will bring us from where we are today, to where islam is today. it is anti-progress. if you do not place a moral judgement on that, and call that evil, then we cannot agree.